Tory gerrymandering

[kimmy]

Of the 22 seats that would be created, 10 would be in Ontario and a good portion of the remaining 12 would be in Liberal-friendly areas of British Columbia. The argument that this is some sort of scheme to give Conservatives an electoral edge seems awfully fragile.

Your interpretation surprises me. The Conservatives are well known to have a preponderance of support in Alberta, and they often seem to think they can rely on BC for seats too. Accordingly it appears to their advantage to add more seats where their success is more assured.

And your Sesame-Street level analysis surprises me. I know you're smarter than to buy into an interpretation that says 10 Ontario seats = 10 Liberal vs 5 Alberta seats + 7 BC seats = 12 Conservative. I would hope you realize I'm smarter than that too. So who are you trying to feed that nonsense to? The other 5 people who voted "no" in your poll?

Even allowing that all 5 Alberta seats added are likely to be safe Conservative ridings, the remaining 17 are not. Of these remaining 17 seats, the bulk of them will unavoidably be located in the Greater Toronto Area of Ontario, and the Lower Mainland area of BC. Both of these are Liberal-friendly areas where the Conservatives have a difficult time winning seats. Of the 22 seats that would be created under this plan, the balance of them between "Conservative" and "Liberal" areas would be at best a wash, and quite likely an advantage to the Liberals as Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver will gain a bunch more Liberal-friendly ridings.

And, contrary to your interpretation of this, the Liberals agree with the plan, at least according to Vancouver Liberal MP Stephen Owen:

The bill stands a good chance of passing in the minority Parliament because the Liberals, according to MP Stephen Owen, will likely back the bill.

"It's just something that needs to be done so we're very supportive," Owen said.

LIBERAL MP SUPPORTS TORY GERRYMANDERING IN ONTARIO

... how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering?

By taking deliberate and specific steps that expand and preserve that 'part of our system'.

That 'part of our system' has been put their intentionally. Respecting that intention and the reasons behind it is not mischief.

But you are simply making up the part about their intentions. Their stated intention is to REMEDY the imbalance that presently exists that you call 'part of our system'. And yet, they only intend to apply the remedy where it helps them most. Ergo, it's mischevious gerrymandering (-like).

The intention I was referring to is the intention that has been apparent since confederation and in every adjustment made to seat distribution formulas since then: providing the smaller provinces with more representation in the HoC than their populations actually warrants.

Each time the representation in the HoC has been adjusted, the formula has taken precautions against provinces losing their voice due to changing population. Each time Canadian leaders have examined the issue, it has been decided that over-representing smaller provinces (and thereby under-representing larger provinces) on a population basis was acceptable and desirable. Which is why I say it is an intentional aspect of our system.

The Conservative proposal maintains (though diminishes) this aspect of Canada's historical allocation of seats in the HoC.

One could think of the Conservative proposal in the same sense as increasing tax brackets. It would create a "middle class," comprised of Alberta, BC, and Quebec, which together will contain roughly half of Canada's population, and all with roughly same representation by population. It creates an "upper class", consisting of just Ontario and its nearly 40% of the populace by the time the next census arrives, which will be slightly under-representation by population. And it creates a "low income" class consisting of the small and mini provinces, where all 6 + 3 territories combined will account for just over 10% of Canada's populace and where extra representatives are granted so that they will have a voice in the HoC.

In this respect, it is like the 1974 act, in creating 3 categories of provinces, with special benefit being given to the smaller ones. However, it's much more logical that Ontario be in a group of its own rather than Quebec be in a group of its own.

Why should Ontario be in a class of its own with respect to representation in the House of Commons? Because it's in a class of it's own in terms of population. It'll have as many representatives as the #2 and #3 provinces combined. Ontario's influence is overwhelming in the HoC even while being slightly under-represented as it already is. Ontario can most afford to give some seats to the mini-provinces.

I think one can make a rational argument as to why the extra representation for the mini-provinces come at Ontario's expense.

There's a big jump between Ontario and Quebec, and there's a big jump between Alberta and the next biggest province. Quebec, BC, and Alberta comprise the group that could most reasonably be considered Canada's medium-sized provinces. I think it's logical that Alberta, BC, and Quebec be grouped together to form a middle-class.

It's certainly more rational than having Alberta and BC in the same class as Ontario, while Quebec be in a separate category.

"Misalignment" implies some sort of mistake or oversight or error has been made, ...

Misalignment implies misalignment, whether by mistake or on purpose.

A slight under-representation of Ontario relative to its population is, in fact, the proper alignment, and has been considered to be so since confederation. Therefore, this is not a "misalignment" at all.

Your feelings are irrelevant. Your statement is belied by the poll results.

Your poll is of no value, for reasons that have already been stated. Citing its results doesn't refute anything.

-k

[Figleaf]

...your Sesame-Street level analysis surprises me. I know you're smarter than to buy into an interpretation that says 10 Ontario seats = 10 Liberal vs 5 Alberta seats + 7 BC seats = 12 Conservative. I would hope you realize I'm smarter than that too. ...

I had hoped you could come up with something better than a transparent strawman argument.

The intention I was referring to is the intention that has been apparent since confederation and in every adjustment made to seat distribution formulas since then: providing the smaller provinces with more representation in the HoC than their populations actually warrants.

The intentions this thread addresses is the stated intentions (to redress population/representation imbalance) and real intentions of the government. The historical intentions of others are not otherwise relevant.

Why should Ontario be in a class of its own with respect to representation in the House of Commons?

You ask the wrong question. There are two:

-Why should Canadians living in Ontario have proportionally less influence than Canadians living in other regions.

-Why should people accept the gerrymandering (-like, as you like) quality of this maneouvre that obviously favors the electoral prospects of the tories?

Your poll is of no value, for reasons that have already been stated. Citing its results doesn't refute anything.

Your 'reasons' are ludicrous.

[kimmy]

...your Sesame-Street level analysis surprises me. I know you're smarter than to buy into an interpretation that says 10 Ontario seats = 10 Liberal vs 5 Alberta seats + 7 BC seats = 12 Conservative. I would hope you realize I'm smarter than that too. ...

I had hoped you could come up with something better than a transparent strawman argument.

Alright, then, what IS your explanation as to how this could possibly be to the Conservatives' advantage?

Of the 22 seats created, at least half will unavoidably be in Liberal-friendly areas (GTA and BC Lower mainland). How does this benefit the Conservatives?

And if this plan does somehow unfairly benefit the Conservatives, why do the Liberals apparently plan to support it? Why does Stephen Owen say it "needs to be done" and that they're "very supportive"? Are they just really really gullible?

The intention I was referring to is the intention that has been apparent since confederation and in every adjustment made to seat distribution formulas since then: providing the smaller provinces with more representation in the HoC than their populations actually warrants.

The intentions this thread addresses is the stated intentions (to redress population/representation imbalance) and real intentions of the government. The historical intentions of others are not otherwise relevant.

In addressing the question of whether there's anything improper, mischevious, or "gerrymander-like" about deliberately under-representing Ontario on a per-population basis, the historical reason *why* Ontario has *always* been under-represented are *central* to the discussion.

We've always done it this way. On purpose. By design. For reasons that are well understood. So the argument that it's improper, mischevious, or "gerrymander-like" falls flat. Long-standing tradition says that it *is* proper.

Why should Ontario be in a class of its own with respect to representation in the House of Commons?

You ask the wrong question. There are two:

-Why should Canadians living in Ontario have proportionally less influence than Canadians living in other regions.

Because it's the mathematical corollary of our collective decision to give Canadians in the smallest provinces proportionally more influence.

-Why should people accept the gerrymandering (-like, as you like) quality of this maneouvre that obviously favors the electoral prospects of the tories?

And again, I challenge you to come up with an explanation of how this "obviously favors the electoral prospects of the Tories".

Your poll is of no value, for reasons that have already been stated. Citing its results doesn't refute anything.

Your 'reasons' are ludicrous.

It's an unscientific push-poll on an internet forum with 14 votes where the leading response is a Greek letter, and where the outcome doesn't even make the argument you are now claim it does. How much consideration do you really think it deserves? Ipso loquitur.

-k

[Figleaf]

Alright, then, what IS your explanation as to how this could possibly be to the Conservatives' advantage?

If you add more seats within an area where you will win all or most of them, you thereby increase the number of seats you are likely to win.

Of the 22 seats created, at least half will unavoidably be in Liberal-friendly areas (GTA and BC Lower mainland). How does this benefit the Conservatives?

The Cons don't win in the BC lower mainland!?! I beg to differ.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ca...ion_2006_v2.png

In addressing the question of whether there's anything improper, mischevious, or "gerrymander-like" about deliberately under-representing Ontario on a per-population basis, the historical reason *why* Ontario has *always* been under-represented are *central* to the discussion.

I disagree. To address the question of whether the tories manoeuver is gerrymander-like you need to look at whether the results of the change are explicable in terms of the stated rationale, and whether there is a benefit being derived by the party driving the change.

-Why should Canadians living in Ontario have proportionally less influence than Canadians living in other regions.

Because it's the mathematical corollary of our collective decision to give Canadians in the smallest provinces proportionally more influence.

You're describing an outcome, not providing the requested explanation.

It's an unscientific push-poll on an internet forum with 14 votes where the leading response is a Greek letter, and where the outcome doesn't even make the argument you are now claim it does. How much consideration do you really think it deserves? Ipso loquitur.

Ah, I see -- you haven't noted the technical aspect of the poll that results in all Ontario voters voting Mu in the non-Ontario section, and the non-Ontario voters vote Mu in the Ontario section.

As for unscientific, I don't think you can conclude that (although it would certainly have a large margin of error). As for it being a push poll, yes, all polls are push polls.

Strip out the Mu's and you see that a substantial majority of people both in and outside of Ontario object to this tory gerrymander, like.

[Michael Bluth]

The Cons don't win in the BC lower mainland!?! I beg to differ.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ca...ion_2006_v2.png

In 2006 yhe Conservatives one one out of the 11 seats in Vancouver and the Northern Lower Mainland. Link

That's the highest region of growth in BC and where the majority of any new seats will go.

Again explain the gerrymandering?

[kimmy]

Alright, then, what IS your explanation as to how this could possibly be to the Conservatives' advantage?

If you add more seats within an area where you will win all or most of them, you thereby increase the number of seats you are likely to win.

That is logical, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate that this proposal adds seats in areas where Conservatives will have a significant advantage.

Of the 22 seats created, at least half will unavoidably be in Liberal-friendly areas (GTA and BC Lower mainland). How does this benefit the Conservatives?

The Cons don't win in the BC lower mainland!?! I beg to differ.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ca...ion_2006_v2.png

That's certainly a pretty map, but it doesn't actually support your claim. See Mr Bluth's message for details.

You, uh, don't actually know what the phrase "Lower Mainland" refers to, do you.

Aside from the 11 ridings enumerated in Michael Bluth's link, there are a remaining 6 ridings in what is considered to be the Greater Vancover/Lower mainland area. These are Richmond, Delta, North Delta, North Surrey, South Surrey, and Nina Grewal's Fleetwood/Port Kells riding. The Conservatives won 3 out of these 6 seats.

Of the 17 seats in the region, the Conservatives won only 4.

In addressing the question of whether there's anything improper, mischevious, or "gerrymander-like" about deliberately under-representing Ontario on a per-population basis, the historical reason *why* Ontario has *always* been under-represented are *central* to the discussion.

I disagree. To address the question of whether the tories manoeuver is gerrymander-like you need to look at whether the results of the change are explicable in terms of the stated rationale, and whether there is a benefit being derived by the party driving the change.

Very well, then:

whether the results of the change are explicable in terms of the stated rationale

Clearly yes.

and whether there is a benefit being derived by the party driving the change.

Clearly not. Most of the new seats will be created in the high-growth urban areas of Ontario and BC where the Tories are traditionally at a significant disadvantage against the Liberals and even the NDP.

-Why should Canadians living in Ontario have proportionally less influence than Canadians living in other regions.

Because it's the mathematical corollary of our collective decision to give Canadians in the smallest provinces proportionally more influence.

You're describing an outcome, not providing the requested explanation.

The explanation is, as a country we have always given voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament.

Ontario voters should have proportionally less influence than Canadians in the smaller provinces, because it's the unavoidable consequence of our choice to give Canadians in the smaller provinces proportionately more influence.

It's an unscientific push-poll on an internet forum with 14 votes where the leading response is a Greek letter, and where the outcome doesn't even make the argument you are now claim it does. How much consideration do you really think it deserves? Ipso loquitur.

Ah, I see -- you haven't noted the technical aspect of the poll that results in all Ontario voters voting Mu in the non-Ontario section, and the non-Ontario voters vote Mu in the Ontario section.

As for unscientific, I don't think you can conclude that (although it would certainly have a large margin of error). As for it being a push poll, yes, all polls are push polls.

Strip out the Mu's and you see that a substantial majority of people both in and outside of Ontario object to this tory gerrymander, like.

You have no way of assuring me that anybody other than yourself followed your convention regarding "mu" or even followed the suggestion of which poll they should vote in. It might well be that one partisan voted "yes" to both questions while 5 partisans voted "no" to both questions, while a further 7 people voted "mu" to both questions because they interpreted the option differently from your intent. It might be that only one person, an Ontario voter who opposes gerrymandering, actually followed the rules. You can't actually demonstrate otherwise. And any poll where people volunteer their participation is inherently unscientific.

The question also only asks whether the participant supports gerrymandering (which is a bit like asking whether someone supports arson...) The question doesn't actually ask whether people feel that Ontario doesn't have adequate representation in our federal system. Or whether the participant considers this specific plan to be gerrymandering. Attempting to impart either of these meanings to the poll outcome would be unsubstantiated.

-k

[Figleaf]

That is logical, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate that this proposal adds seats in areas where Conservatives will have a significant advantage.

Look at the electoral map I linked to. The big blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean is where the seats are going.

You, uh, don't actually know what the phrase "Lower Mainland" refers to, do you.

Maybe not. I have always assumed it means southern BC, excluding Vancouver Island, but on reflection, I suppose it could have something to do with river systems. Fill me in?

Of the 17 seats in the region, the Conservatives won only 4.

Last time, but how would they perceive their usual prospects in that area? Also, I hope you're not disputing that Alberta is Toryland.

Very well, then:

whether the results of the change are explicable in terms of the stated rationale

Clearly yes.

The stated rationale is to redress population/representation imbalances. And yet, it specifically avoids doing so for the part of Canada the tories can't seem to make much headway in.

The explanation is, as a country we have always given voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament.

Generally speaking, Appeal to Tradition is considered a fallacy.

Ontario voters should have proportionally less influence than Canadians in the smaller provinces, because it's the unavoidable consequence of our choice to give Canadians in the smaller provinces proportionately more influence.

And that is, I think, a teleology.

You have no way of assuring me that anybody other than yourself followed your convention regarding "mu" or even followed the suggestion of which poll they should vote in. ...

True. My poll, like all other polls, is subject to the reliability of the responses provided.

And any poll where people volunteer their participation is inherently unscientific.

I think that rules out all polls, if you assume as I do that coerced polls are at least equally invalid.

[kimmy]

That is logical, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate that this proposal adds seats in areas where Conservatives will have a significant advantage.

Look at the electoral map I linked to. The big blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean is where the seats are going.

You are mistaken. That large blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean consists of large rural ridings where at most one new seat might be created (due to population growth in the Kelowna/Okanagan area.)

Most or all of the new BC seats will not be in the large blue area, but rather the small red and orange area around the dot labled "Vancouver."

You accused me of making a straw-man argument earlier when I dismissed the notion of Alberta, BC, and Ontario as monolithic entities. And yet, your description of this as adding a bunch of seats to "that big blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean" does indeed sound like you have a monolithic view of BC. At the very least your comments make it sound like you know very little about the politics and population distribution of the place.

You, uh, don't actually know what the phrase "Lower Mainland" refers to, do you.

Maybe not. I have always assumed it means southern BC, excluding Vancouver Island, but on reflection, I suppose it could have something to do with river systems. Fill me in?

The "Lower Mainland" is generally used to refer to Vancouver and its suburbs and satellite communities along the lower portions of the Fraser River.

Of the 17 seats in the region, the Conservatives won only 4.

Last time, but how would they perceive their usual prospects in that area?

Rather poor, generally speaking. The Vancouver region been represented by a largely Liberal and NDP contingent for as long as I can remember. I suspect one would have to go all the way back to the first Mulroney landslide to find a time when the Vancouver region sent a large Tory contingent to Ottawa.

Also, I hope you're not disputing that Alberta is Toryland.

Of course I'm not. That's 5 seats out of the 22. The remaining 17 will largely be drawn in areas that are considered "Liberal-land".

The explanation is, as a country we have always given voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament.

Generally speaking, Appeal to Tradition is considered a fallacy.

Ok, if I remove the reference to tradition, does that make you happier?

We give voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament.

Now it's not an appeal to tradition, it's an explanation of why smaller provinces have higher proportional representation.

And any poll where people volunteer their participation is inherently unscientific.

I think that rules out all polls, if you assume as I do that coerced polls are at least equally invalid.

I had hoped to draw your attention to the difference between polls where pollsters select a theoretically random sampling of people to question, and polls where anyone may participate if they choose to.

The former are considered credible measures of public opinion. The latter are considered "just for fun". Examples of the former include political polls and other surveys undertaken by reputable polling firms. Examples of the latter include American Idol, and the Time Magazine "man of the year" internet polls which have resulted in people as diverse as Matthew Shepard, Mumia Abu Jamal, and Mick Foley being top vote-getters.

-k

[Figleaf]

You are mistaken. That large blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean consists of large rural ridings where at most one new seat might be created (due to population growth in the Kelowna/Okanagan area.)

...

The "Lower Mainland" is generally used to refer to Vancouver and its suburbs and satellite communities along the lower portions of the Fraser River.

Well, given this information, of which I was obviously ignorant, the case for raw gerrymandering-like in BC is much reduced. (Perhaps they have a more subtle agenda ...)

Still, that doesn't make it any better for Ontario.

BTW, thanks for correcting my ignorance of BC geography.

We give voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament.

And why is that a justification for rep/pop misalignment?

I had hoped to draw your attention to the difference between polls where pollsters select a theoretically random sampling of people to question, and polls where anyone may participate if they choose to.

Okay. All internet polls are crap, mine no less so.